R.I.P Trayvon

I thought he said he saw the chest wound when he turned him over

That's why the asian gave him the bag

I'm not taking credit from him for trying 15min prior to arrival but after seeing the chest wound I just don't see the point

Maybe I heard wrong

Its a lot going on where I'm at
 
I thought he said he saw the chest wound when he turned him over

That's why the asian gave him the bag

I'm not taking credit from him for trying 15min prior to arrival but after seeing the chest wound I just don't see the point

Maybe I heard wrong

Its a lot going on where I'm at
yeah he said chest wound but just cause u get a chest wound doesnt mean u got shot in the heart the chest is a big area. and i mean think like this if it was ur mom or dad and u knew cpr even though its been 15 minutes would u try to give cpr or say "why bothere its been 15 min." as law enforcement im sure they are taught to try as best u can within ur abilities or if u think theres a chance so i assume he thought there was a slight chance
 
I get that

And I never was fond of biology

But I thought no pulse no heartbeat

That usually means its a wrap

You wanna give him a purple heart for trying more power to you
 
Last edited:
I get that

And I never was fond of biology

But I thought no pulse no heartbeat

That usually means its a wrap

You wanna give him a purple heart for trying more power to you
im not a doctor but no heartbeat is death BUT i think sometimes its possible to come back
 
Like I said

I guess

We all know Lazarus and Jesus did it

So I can see where you coming from
 
I fell asleep during the neighborhood watch organizers testimony and woke up at the end of the cops.

I too think GZ is too much of a weak hearted individual to start a physical confrontation but I could see him finally being fed up enough with "these ******g punks" to stalk him in an aggressive manner. TM stops to ask him what the problem is and words are exchanged. TM tells him to **** off and GZ gives him the security grab like "you're not going anywhere" and then all hell breaks loose. This is just a hypothetical and I'm sure can't be proven but that's how I imagine it.

What I think would be easy to prove is that GZ had to have confronted him at close range because the space looks too wide open to have not been able to keep a safe distance. Once he lost sight of him that's when you back off. TM was a kid, a kid being tracked by some strange man at night. He had the right to protect himself as well. So when you have two people protecting themselves, the responsibility for the outcome has to be placed on who caused it the series of events. And obviously that was GZ.
 
Like I said

I guess

We all know Lazarus and Jesus did it

So I can see where you coming from
:lol: naw seriously i think thats what those electrical things when they yell "CLEAR" are for and i THINK AED's are for cant remember i slept through my cpr class. ambulances have em maybe cops do as well not sure. but they can be used to get the heart beating again
 
Last edited:
All jokes aside

I just think you probably would do more harm then good pumpin on somebody chest you know has a chest wound trying to do cpr

But that's just me tho
 
All jokes aside

I just think you probably would do more harm then good pumpin on somebody chest you know has a chest wound trying to do cpr

But that's just me tho
but like u said u THINK so ur not a qualified professional? so ur not sure...............im not either i have a cpr/first aid card and dont remember anything so im not sure either
i mean during normal compression's u can break someones ribs which is common so idk man sometimes its just those in the moment things.
props though i enjoyed the actual convo without us flaming each other
 
Off topic but anyone else find it ironic as hell how the same people that are quick to point out the President's "white side" are also the same ones who are quick to point out that Zimmerman is half-hispanic? 
laugh.gif


"The President is Black"

Response - "Wait a minute...Obama's half-white"

"Zimmerman is a white racist"

Response - "Wait a minute...Zimmerman is half-hispanic"
 
Last edited:
It's all going to boil down to Zimmerman's testimony and who initiated the contact. He wasn't breaking the law by following him, so whoever pushed the other person first will probably be seen as the aggressor. Kinda messed up because he's the only person that witnessed the entire thing, so he can fabricate it a bit and no one would know. I guarantee that he says martin walked up to him aggressively after realizing that he was being followed.
 
Yep I'm not coming at you sideways or nothing

Just giving my point of view if it was me

I don't know cpr at all but I don't think its a bright idea to pump someones chest who I know has a chest wound

Had I not known where he was wounded that be another story

But its all good its nt I'm just talkn
 
It's all going to boil down to Zimmerman's testimony and who initiated the contact. He wasn't breaking the law by following him, so whoever pushed the other person first will probably be seen as the aggressor. Kinda messed up because he's the only person that witnessed the entire thing, so he can fabricate it a bit and no one would know. I guarantee that he says martin walked up to him aggressively after realizing that he was being followed.
ya I agree. Witness testimony describing the confrontation will also be important
 
so people can just freely stalk teenagers? gee and I wonder why there are so much rapes and kidnappings in this world...

Read and interpret for yourself. Don't forget the keywords.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.
(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.
(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.
 
Back
Top Bottom